To maintain the highest level of publication quality, JCLSP adheres to a policy of double-blind peer review. All research articles published in the JCLSP undergo a rigorous peer review procedure, which consists of the following fundamental components:

1. JCLSP is using a two-stage procedure: Your manuscript will first be evaluated by the editorial team for acceptability for publishing in the journal after the technical review. If appropriate, it will then be given to one of the editors to handle the evaluation and decision-making process.
2. Your work will be assigned to an Editor if your submission fits JCLSP's requirements and scope. Reviewers who are regarded as experts in their fields will be selected and contacted by the editor. Peer review is a volunteer service, therefore it can take some time but be assured that the editor will follow up with reviewers on a regular schedule if they don't respond right away. The status will remain "Under Review" during this time.
3. It is also possible that the Editor will determine that your submission does not satisfy the journal's standards or scope and so will not be further evaluated. In such a condition, the editor will promptly tell you that your paper has been rejected and may suggest an alternative publication.

Peer review of referred papers:

The JCLSP editors will promptly determine whether to accept, reject, or seek adjustments to submitted manuscripts based on the reviews and editorial insights from the Reviewers. Moreover, Editors have the option to seek additional evaluations as necessary. When the Editors determine that additional review is necessary, the authors will be notified. The editor will evaluate submitted articles based on the topic and writing style described in the journal guidelines. To maintain academic quality requirements, all articles undergo double-blind peer review, in which the reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other during the review process. In brief, these are the steps:

1. Manuscript Submission (by author).
2. Manuscript Evaluation and Selection (by manager and editors).
3. Editors have the authority to immediately accept, reject, or evaluate submissions. Prior to further processing steps, each article undergoes a Turnitin plagiarism check.
4. Manuscript Reviewing Process (by reviewers).
5. Notification of Manuscript Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection (by editor to author based on reviewer's comments).
6. Manuscript Revision (by author)
7. If the Editor is satisfied with the revision, notification for acceptance (by the editor).
8. Galley proof and publishing process.

The peer-reviewing process is divided into rounds, with stages 1 through 5 considered as the first round. The editor or editorial board weighs the suggestions made by the peer reviewers before arriving at the final decision. The most common decisions are the following:

1. Accepted without any changes.
2. Accepted with minor revisions, indicating that the manuscript is suitable for publication but requires some limited modifications to meet the necessary standards.
3. Accepted with major revisions, implying that the manuscript needs substantial changes before it can be reconsidered for publication.
4. Rejected, which usually occurs if the manuscript falls outside the journal's scope and aims, has significant technical or descriptive issues or lacks clarity in presentation.